Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

of bringing a suspect before the court. In practical terms, and despite the plainwording of the article, arrest for a purpose which includes questioning asuspect with a view to developing a case against him/her is compliant withArticle 5, provided that the police intention is to bring the suspect before thecourt should the reasonable suspicion be confirmed as a result of theinvestigations, including the questioning, carried out after arrest.5.1.26 The Convention thus permits arrest and detention on grounds of reasonablesuspicion of an offence having been committed by the suspect. Many statesacross Europe apply reasonable suspicion or a similar threshold 36 to permit thedeprivation of the suspect’s liberty for the purpose of bringing him/herpromptly before a court.Consideration5.1.27 The definition of who is a “suspect” is likely to develop with Conventionjurisprudence. A “suspect” does not have a distinct legal status, nor is thereany requirement on the police to advise a suspect of his/her potentiallyprecarious position. A statutory definition of “suspect”, and the rightsaccruing, could provide greater clarity and certainty to all those involved in apolice investigation. However, if matters were formalised at too early a stage,a disproportionate and unnecessary burden would be placed on the policewhich would risk compromising investigations. The marking of a person as asuspect could be given undue weight by the public and media, to the detriment36 see Kalmthout et al (eds): Pre trial Detention in the European Union: An Analysis of MinimumStandards in Pre Trial Detention and the Grounds for Regular Review in Member States of the EU(2009) Table 4.1 on the various descriptions of the level of suspicion required for pre trial detention88